Hillary Clinton on Freedom {of} From Religion

 

Democrat front-runner candidate for President Hillary Clinton made some frightening comments in a speech she gave addressing the Women in the World Summit in New York City where she stated the following:
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far-away countries but right here in the United States.”
The entire twenty-three-plus minute speech is embedded below at the end of the paragraph. What Hillary Clinton expressed here is almost exactly the same as what President Obama meant when he railed against those people stating, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

 

 

 

 

He as well believed that those who held traditional American beliefs were the main impediment to Western societies being capable of moving forward. He and Hillary both believed that religion, Judeo-Christian religious beliefs were the central force against permitting the necessary changes they both see as required in order for the twenty-first-century progress to move ahead. Of course their definitions of what must be eradicated from the society are the support given to the fetus and its physical well-being and right to life over the mother’s mental wellbeing and right to an uninterrupted social life. In all of their references they paint the religious as standing in the way and impeding moving forward most often by the religious oppositions to abortion as the biggest hurdle which society must overcome in order to continue onto the path to a future filled with promise even if it is devoid of children. Simply look to Europe and witness the reality they desire for the rest of the Western world, a slow, inexorable marching into oblivion. They have cast the religious amongst us as societal Luddites impeding the progressive political agenda and its advancement. Of course advancement only as it has been defined by the Progressives and echoed as so precisely by a complicit media as it is the apparent marriage of convenience between the Progressives on the extreme left and their sycophants in the media which are responsible for the marriage of convenience between leftist culture and leftist government.

 

Meanwhile, we have watched the decline of Western societal structure as a sizable number from each generation have been literally cut from the society even before they were born. Further, those who were the underpinning of the society find themselves in decline which has led to an extreme increase in seeking of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, as solutions to initial errors in judgement or errant lifestyle that has led to an half of each generation left missing from society since the onset of abortion as nothing more than a simple procedure with no moral or otherwise negative influence. Still the Progressive extremists and their views of life have been cast and accepted as middle of the road, thus making extreme Progressives to be defined as the moderates while centrist individualists being made into right-wing-crazies and Constitutionalists are painted as so far to the right that their views must be guarded against just in case they might win a simple argument and start the snowball down the hillside.

 

To witness how such radical views became defined as the centrist view, one need only witness a panel discussion where there are three or four from the progressive side while as well as more often than not the moderator while only one and on rare occasions two chosen and permitted to express the conservative argument; this is called balanced. There is little to any debate about what Hillary expressed at that particular venue, she simply laid claim that religious doctrines will require changes in order to make them compatible with her and the other Progressives’ agenda. It is this low grade war being fought between the religious and secular interests that will eventually be decided in the courts. It is only fair that this finalizing in the abortion debate end from whence it came with the initial Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, and the Americans have continued debating that decision ever since. This was one of the final deliberations where the court took it upon itself to forego waiting for the people and their elected governments to make legal and to protect abortive rights bringing the argument to the fore enacting the sentence such that they would fit it within the protections within the Constitution. Thus the Supreme Court took it upon itself to make it illegal to refuse a woman her right to have an abortion and challenged those who disagreed with their going rogue presuming to make law rather than interpret law from the bench. This will become the point where the Democrat Party made the Obama Administration’s core beliefs the central plank in their 2016 Platform placing it dead center. Soon after the Roe vs. Wade decision the makeup of the court changed and has contained an odd balance with usually two or three justices, who can best described as truly moderate, determining the balance of the Supreme Court on any given day.

 

These floated trial balloons being loosed by the Democrats and Hillary along with the rapid-fire discovery or addressing of controversies and questionable acts have a simple explanation, best to get them behind them and decide what positions to retain and which to discard. By the time next year rolls around and actual primary election season is upon the Americans these will all be discarded as old news, been there covered that and simply proven irrelevant already so let’s forget it and not waste precious time and talk about now. Should this plank against Judeo-Christian religious based society raise sufficient clamor, then it will never be brought to the fore again but it will still remain as a central pillar, a silent, central pillar. For those who doubt this, perhaps a little revisit to the 2012 Democrat National Convention move to restore to the platform a reference to “G0d” and recognition of “Jerusalem as the Israeli Capital City” is in order. The response by the Democrat Delegates on the floor and the response of the chair are their epic insanity and can be viewed at the Globe and Mail here; you can always count on the British to retain things well past their use-by-date and for Beyond the Cusp to recall and use such trivialities. It appears that the Democrats and Team Hillary have learned that it is paramount to get through all of the ugly and difficult to handle items which might reveal the difficulties and other unintended consequences up front and early on so that the Democrat National Convention can be choreographed to run smooth as a Patrick Swayze fight or dance scene. The one question which remains is whether the American public reaches a point where they have a really severe case of Hillary fatigue from which her campaign is incapable of surviving. With the remaining time and the earlier than usual kickoff, we may be about to watch a Hillary burnout where she does not get past and escape all the questions from her past and instead she simply gathers more questions and doubts and eventually is forced from the campaign simply as too much ends up being revealed. The question remains if not Hillary Clinton, then who? There are those calling for Elizabeth Warren and others now claiming that Bernie Sanders would make a formidable campaigner. There are other candidates out there such as Martin O’Malley, Maryland Governor and former Mayor of Baltimore; Joe Biden, current Vice President and perpetual comic relief; Andrew Cuomo was former New York Attorney General and U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton administration is the eldest son of the legendary ex-Governor of New York and Democratic Party heavyweight, Mario Cuomo; Howard Dean as long as he remains calm and not scream eerily; Rahm Emanuel was part of the power behind President Obama’s first term; and Al Franken who is a humorous joke which would make a mockery of the office and a few others. There are a few who are above the fold candidates who have the backing of some of the Democrat elite and thus will be the ones who will be the top contenders. Hillary Clinton is the most obvious with Elizabeth Warren the favorite of the leadership of the not Hillary establishment and lastly there is Michelle Obama who would have a formidable cash producing machine of her husband behind her. The odds between these candidates and the others make for an interesting mix with Hillary probably being nudged out due to her baggage being simply overwhelming and her inability to avoid making incredulous miscues and just plain saying the dumbest thing at the worst possible moment. This plus the fact that her voice is simply grating on the nerves which also makes her miscues even more horrific and damning. Michelle Obama has improved her presence and has learned from her mistakes made during her husband’s campaigning. Still, Michelle Obama also has grated on the nerves of too many people including many in the liberal media which will work against her. Add to that the statements she had made about the electing of her husband as the moment which made her feel proud about her country and other haunting statements which will be used against her. The worst thing thus far which can be used against Elizabeth Warren would be her reference to having been partly Native American which she can easily dismiss and give a heartfelt, or at least appearing to be heartfelt apology and she would probably be permitted to march on unscathed as that would become old news almost immediately and she has no other thus far obvious mea culpas to trip her candidacy over. This latest Hillary statement may simply become something which could balloon and become literally overwhelming as it will play very poorly in Iowa, South Carolina, parts of Florida and possibly New Hampshire. If Hillary Clinton is going to implode it will become evident very quickly and then it will blow the door wide open and let the torrential flood of candidates begin.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Upcoming Midterm United States Elections, a Slightly Different Look

Who is ahead in the different races depends on the state and even on the political leanings of the news or talk shows one follows. If you go to polling it gets even more confusing. Not only are the polls often slanted depending on who ordered the polling but it also depends on what the subject the poll is covering. Here are a few examples from some polls. A CBS poll recently showed that fifty percent of those responding said the Democrats are the party that “cares more about the needs and problems of people” while only 34 percent chose the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans have a nine point lead concerning the economy, an eleven point lead on foreign policy and a twenty-one point lead on addressing terrorism in an October CBS poll. So, who wins; the party of the people or the party which appears to be more competent? These numbers are nothing new as often the Democrats have polled well on sympathy and feeling the people’s pains while the Republicans historically win on foreign policy and confronting threats from the outside world. The fact the Republicans are polling slightly ahead of Democrats on the economy is not nationally definitive enough to be applied to every race. The probability is that in the traditionally Democrat leaning states the Democrats will probably poll even or ahead of the Republicans while in traditionally Republican states the Republicans will poll ahead. The place where that mere nine point lead for the Republicans becomes evident will be in what is often referred to as the ‘purple’ states where the parties have split the wins between them would thus likely give the Republicans a slight lead on the economy. Unfortunately that may not transfer to votes as there is also the personality of the candidates as well as the effectiveness of their campaigns and whether there are third party or independent candidates on the ballot and from which side they will draw away votes. Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates tend to take more votes from Republicans while Green and sometimes Libertarian Party take more votes from the Democrats. But other than their campaign, their affability or their campaign commercials and use of media and social networks, the most important determining item will simply be which party gets the voters to the polls, period.

With this year not being a Presidential election year, the national party machines are operating but there are far fewer volunteers and fewer funds for them to make a large determining difference. This means that it will be up to the State and even more local party machines and the candidate supporting campaign staff which will make up a significant part of the get out the vote efforts. States with Gubernatorial elections this election will have more party influence than those without. What makes these midterms so difficult to make predictions is because there is no real enthusiasm evident in the electorate and it is very possible that both of the major parties will suffer from miserable voter turnout and thus calling the elections near impossible. There will be some states where polling data is so skewed to one candidate that there is almost no challenge to picking the likely winner short of an unseen stumble where the leading candidate is caught in a criminal act or other compromising situation. They do not even need to actually be guilty as that will depend on a court of law, but such accusations can sway the court of public opinion and that is exactly what elections are, the court of public opinion choosing those they feel are less guilty of potentially bad leadership. That has been the truth in all too many elections in the United States in recent times where people are literally trying to choose which evil is less harmful. Some have gotten to the point that they have finally refused to vote for the lesser from two evils and they refuse to ever again vote for evil no matter how slight. These voters are demanding the parties to put forth candidates who are capable of leading and representing the people with integrity and virtue. This might even lead to making a third party or independent candidate to have a real possibility to take elections and possibly change the American political landscape once again. Perhaps it is time for a new political movement as the last great movement was the Abolition Movement which birthed the Republican Party and the Whig Party was laid to rest. The more likely bet is that the two major parties have so slanted and poisoned the election laws throughout the United States that it has become next to impossible for any third party or independent candidate to make the ballot, let alone have any funds remaining should they manage to make ballot, and trust I know from where I speak. This is really a sad problem as this may prevent a new direction to be proposed and placed before the American electorate and instead continue forcing them to choose between two toxins, progressive Democrats who want to double the size of government every decade, or the progressive Republican who wishes to slow government growth so that it doubles only four or five times each century. Since both the major parties are in favor of growing government and the sole difference is exactly the rate of growth the American people can rest assured that over time the Republicans will seem like the Democrats of a few decades back while the Democrats will be breaking new ground which the Republican will fall in love with a few decades hence. Should this trend not be reversed soon the United States will continue in decline and only accelerate with time.

Beyond the Cusp

What the Coming Republican Wars Doth Wrought

For those confused about this title, let’s first describe the coming conflict which could split the Republican Party wide open and possibly cause a disaster at the midterm elections. What some people refer to as the Old Guard or the Establishment Leadership Republicans are blaming the Party’s election woes on what they refer to as the Tea Party extremists and Constitutional purists. Meanwhile the more conservative Republicans and independents are accusing many of the longstanding Republicans such as Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others as having slowly drifted away from their original conservative principles more towards the mainstream progressive big government middle which they claim they will no longer support demanding that their concerns be addressed and candidates more willing to back small Constitutional government be offered. Both sides claim that the only path to gain majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as any chance to win the White House in 2016 goes through the center of their constituencies. Obviously both cannot be correct and only one side will ultimately prove victorious in getting those they back onto the ballots where the elections will prove or disprove their contention to have the best chance to win in the election booths. The initial battle will come during the primary elections and the final determination of which extreme of the Republican Party is better able to get their people elected. In a perfect world there would be an equal number of Republicans of both stripe on the ballots so that a definitive result will be produced after the elections and to the victors should go the future of the Republican Party.

 

Needless to say, but should the Tea Party, conservatives, and Constitutionalists succeed in gaining a fair number of candidates after the primaries and they prove to be far more successful than the reputed establishment candidates the Old Guard will not yield and will likely claim that these candidates were only able to win in the reddest of red states and have no possibility of being elected in battleground states which are necessary in Presidential elections. This will be their argument which they will defend their right to retain control over the mechanisms and various committees within the Republican Party and attempt to minimize the numbers of Tea Party and fellow travelers from gaining much of a foothold. The people who are part of the establishment always resist change as change is the greatest threat to their hold onto power and control over who their party places on ballots and supports with funding and other forms of assistance. This is one area where the truism of, “Old habits die hard,” proves to be very true. The fight over the heart of the Republican Party will prove to be very interesting as it is our opinion that one side has all the mechanisms of power, financing and established structure including established mailing lists while the other has the excitement of new leadership, a waking support base, and a bigger and better message that will gain strength even beyond just the Republican Party and be attractive to many independents, libertarians, classical liberals and even some of the older established Democrats who are finding that the new Democrat Party has left them and no longer supports the same issues and views they did when they joined the party.

 

Going forward there is a possibility of a third party becoming established provided the Tea Party can enlist those others who also support their core issues which include but are not limited to smaller government, Constitutional government, more power and control at the State and local governments, government out of our lives, more liberty and a return to the principles on which the United States was originally founded. In many ways these people are purists who have one problem in that they are unable to compromise and tend to be rigid idealists. For those who agree with their general views and positions will see no problem in their intransigence but that also creates other problems. The one failing which strident conservatives are often guilty of is that they demand complete compliance with their every position before they will support any candidate. An example would be a fiscal conservative who is pro second amendment but will allow for stem cell biological experimentation and research using the existing supply of stem cells will run afoul of the most strident anti-abortion wing and they will never be able to garner the votes from that wing and that can cost them the election. This in turn creates an interesting dilemma where an establishment Republican candidate would be unable to win an election without garnering the Tea Party, conservative and Constitutionalist voters while Tea Party and related conservative voters face the problem of splintering their base voters as they all fall in separate camps around their core issues and principles which include such issues as gun rights, abortion, medical research practices, fiscal prudence, individual liberties, limited government, and societal morality. I guess the moral of the story is that no matter which political stripe a candidate identifies with there are a million reasons that people will find to pick them apart and any one of these would be reason enough to withhold their support. The candidate’s challenge is to find the message that offends the least number of voters and then sticking to the principles which they ran with when elected. Honesty in politics is more often rewarded than punished and that may be because in many ways it is so rare.

 

Beyond the Cusp